Email this article to a friend

We on the Left have no choice but to build something new—as difficult as that will be.

Bernie Sanders’ historic campaign for the Democratic nomination, accompanied by his unabashed embrace of the S-word, has propelled the concept of democratic socialism into the mainstream.

As a result, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the only thriving descendant of the Socialist Party of Eugene V. Debs, is being rejuvenated. Since 2015, DSA membership has increased by more than 200 percent and now stands at more than 20,000. The number of chapters has increased from 43 to more than 120 in 42 states. In the remaining eight states, local DSA groups are working toward chapter status. The biggest change, however, has been demographic. In 2015, only a third of DSA’s members were in their twenties or thirties. Today, thanks to the influx of young Bernie supporters, people under 40 are the vast majority.

DSA will hold its biennial convention in Chicago on August 3-6. At the top of the agenda: What is a democratic socialist strategy in the Trump era? And what does that look like in the electoral arena?

After the failure of Rep. Keith Ellison’s (D-Minn.) bid to chair the Democratic National Committee (DNC), some DSA members have become disenchanted with the Democratic Party, and the organization is divided on how—even whether—to work with the Democrats.

In These Times asked Jessie Mannisto, a 34-year-old librarian and DSA member in D.C. who was active in Sanders’ campaign, and Chris Maisano, a 34-year-old union staffer and Brooklyn member of DSA’s Left Caucus, a group that doubts the wisdom of aligning with the Democrats, to weigh in.

CHRIS: The biggest problem with this debate is that the antagonists typically skip over the most interesting (and most important) questions in a rush to recite formulas or invoke the arcana of American electoral structures. More often than not, they don’t even bother to ask why (or whether) socialists should participate in electoral politics in the first place. So why participate, especially when the barriers we face are so high? How does electoral activity fit into our larger project? How does it help us achieve our ultimate goal? What are the dangers and limitations of electoral participation (whether in the Democratic Party or outside of it), and how do they affect our movement?

The Left focuses on two main reasons for electoral participation. The first is amelioration. Here, the primary motivation is to gain a foothold in government, push reforms and block rightwing initiatives. Success is measured largely by winning elections and keeping conservatives out of office. It is oriented toward the short term, and its logic leads directly into the Democratic Party.

The second is opposition. In this case, the primary motivation is to spread political ideas, agitate the people and measure the political strength of the contending social forces. Success is measured largely by whether constituency for socialism is growing outside the electoral system, rather than by winning elections. It is oriented toward a longer term, and its logic leads primarily (though not exclusively) into political activity independent from the Democratic Party.

It should be said that the relative weight of these two orientations is not equivalent. Amelioration is the dominant approach to electoral politics on the broad Left (and within DSA), and has been since the New Deal and the Popular Front. Neither of these orientations are particularly satisfactory. Reformism doesn’t reform, and it has not succeeded in fighting the Right, either. At the same time, an oppositional approach to electoral politics seems like a recipe for marginalization.

Many will point to Bernie Sanders as evidence for a third option—what we might call the “dung heap” strategy, after the Irish revolutionary James Connolly. The Democratic Party may be a pile of crap, but perhaps one can climb on top of it to address the masses, as Bernie did during the Democratic primaries. The trick, as Connolly recognized, is not to get covered in dung.

But falling into the dung is inevitable, and we on the Left have no choice but to build something new—as difficult as that will be. I don’t think that will begin to happen until these latest attempts to climb the dung heap (e.g., the campaign to elect Keith Ellison chair of the DNC) end up in a mess.

JESSIE: What makes this debate interesting is the enthusiasm around democratic socialism today. The Sanders campaign has created a faction within the Democratic Party that is ready to fight for and embrace not only our ideals, but also the label “democratic socialist.”

The best reason to participate in electoral politics is that we’ve got a rare opportunity to climb that dung heap and use it to fertilize some seeds. By that I mean, of course, the local, state and national leaders who will begin the long, challenging work of developing policies to support our goals.

Moreover, as democratic socialists, we’re presumably supporters of democracy—so we’d better be ready to fight for the integrity of elections. By going head to head against corporate Democrats, we can confront their lack of meaningful plans to help ordinary Americans and at the same time shine a light on the corrupt and undemocratic nature of the Democratic Party. That’s a narrative that resonates, and we can use it to our advantage as we fight for justice and freedom under the two-party system.

The primaries also give us a chance to reach those who agree with our critiques and our proposals but who aren’t inclined to see themselves as “radicals” or “activists”—those who only tune in when it’s time to vote. Our message has to resonate outside our base if we ever want to build meaningful socialist institutions. Making that case despite the system’s flaws demonstrates that we’re committed, and that we’re not going away just because the establishment bribes the refs and tries to move the goal posts.

It’s exciting and encouraging to hear the democratic socialist message in the electoral arena. Look at South Fulton, Ga., where DSA’s khalid kamau (spelled in the Yoruba African tradition) just won his first-round city council election, thanks in part to the DSA members who worked to amplify his message and turn out the vote for him. The fact that we’re excited about a first-round victory in a city council election could be said to show how far we have to go, but we have to start where we are. We didn’t sign up as socialists because we thought it would be easy, and we know that power concedes nothing without a fight. But why claim that we’re doomed to fail already?

Even as I call for stepping up the electoral fight against the Democratic Party establishment, however, I’d love to hear a good Plan B. If we were to build something new, what would it look like? Must we wait until our hopes blow up in such a fiery fashion that a meaningfully massive contingent opts for #DemExit? Is that even desirable? Or does this Plan B exist wholly outside electoral politics? If there is something new to be built, is it possible to start now while channeling the post-Bernie electoral energy?

CHRIS: The success of Bernie Sanders should be a source of hope for socialists in the United States today, but it is also important to keep that in perspective. It’s a stretch to argue that, in the wake of his presidential run, there is now a democratic socialist faction of any significance inside the Democratic Party. Nancy Pelosi’s infamous town hall declaration, “We’re capitalist, and that’s just the way it is,” is more representative of the party and the views of its leaders than Bernie’s salvoes against the billionaire class.

The difference between us, as far as I can tell, is our respective views on the place of electoral politics in the broader socialist project. You argue that elections and party politics are the best arenas for us to spread our ideas, challenge the Democratic Party establishment and develop a new generation of socialist leaders. I don’t agree that participation in the electoral process—whether as Democrats or independents—is the most effective way for us to attain the goals we both share.

We should not reject electoral politics entirely. The conditions of bourgeois democracy we live under require that we win some degree of electoral support for our project. But it is very difficult to use electoral campaigns as a vehicle for organizing mass movements. To be successful, strikes and other forms of social struggle require direct challenges to the power of an employer or the state, and under these conditions socialists can often play a leading role.

Election campaigns, by contrast, operate according to a different logic—unless you’re willing to lose consistently. Since elections are all about winning a majority of the vote and getting supporters out to the polls, all other concerns are secondary.

While most people only tune in to official politics at election time (if they even tune in at all), they have no choice but to go to work, deal with their landlords and raise their families every day of their lives. These are the arenas where people directly experience exploitation and oppression, and they are where socialists can work to organize movements with the power to win concessions and change people’s consciousness.

The election of individual socialists to offices scattered around the country is not a bad thing. But in the absence of a larger extra-electoral movement capable of bringing irresistible pressure to bear on the government, it’s more likely that the system will change them more than they will change the system.

Electoral politics can play a constructive role in our project only if we are willing to take the long view and embed ourselves in workplaces and communities to re-organize the working class. The state and the two mainstream parties are not neutral institutions. We can’t simply enter them and hope to wield them for our own purposes, especially when the Left and social movements are so weak. Without an independent source of social power, our ability to make gains through the electoral arena will be severely limited.

JESSIE: Let’s frame the question carefully: Should we work within the Democratic Party? I’d say yes. Is it enough to work within the Democratic Party? Definitely not. I’m energized by the possibilities of this political moment, but I still see electoral work as one component of broader movement building. It seems our main difference is our degree of optimism.

That points to the ever-present underlying question: How can we best allocate our limited resources? When we spend time on electoral campaigns, we’ve got to think strategically and creatively about how this work can help build our movement. Is it through the ideas the candidate is spreading? The allies we’re making? Or the races we win?

One hurdle stands in the way of such strategic thinking: Many democratic socialist activists don’t know what a meaningful extra-electoral effort looks like. Bernie’s campaign gave us a concrete, vivid example of how our message could resonate and spread. It’s important for our experienced organizers to educate our new members about other means of movement building, including concrete details of successful campaigns that provide a vision to emulate. That, in turn, would get new recruits and long-time members alike thinking about how our electoral work can build upon these efforts and create something that lasts after the campaign ends. Indeed, I joined DSA because I thought elections weren’t nearly enough, and though I had an abstract sense that there was more that could be done, I had no idea what that was or how to go about doing it.

Electoral work isn’t necessarily the best way to spread our message, but it’s a way that’s proven powerful of late. I’ve felt frustrated to the point of contemplating canceling my Democratic Party registration for the second time (I signed back up to vote for Bernie), but then I reminded myself how much easier my giving up would make it for all those corporate super-delegates. They’d love it if we sat at home and let them run their primaries with no alternative vision to stir things up (even as they’d surely blame us for any losses if we did the same in November). But Nancy Pelosi’s defiant declaration that the Democratic Party is capitalist—indeed, that she even had to say this!—shows that this position is now something that requires their defense.

Let’s keep this pressure up—in every place that those who are sympathetic to our ideas will see it. Let’s shine a spotlight on what it means to be a capitalist apologist in an age of rising inequality and economic precarity. Presumably, we all joined DSA because we believe it’s possible for avowedly socialist ideas to resonate with the American people. For that reason, I hope we don’t exit the Democratic Party; I hope we infiltrate it.

Chris Maisano is a writer and activist based in Brooklyn, N.Y. He has written for Democratic Left and and is the editor of The Activist.
Jessie Mannisto is a librarian and a Democratic Socialists of America member who was active in Sen. Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign.

The hardening of both right and left political arteries is leading to a right-leaning blue collar class. Ergo, the more the Democrats "big tent" is torn apart from inside; the more the right digs into the political power of the true "capitalists". We know what that means do we not? Radical "Trumpism".

LIstening to the above discussion in the face of Nancy Pelosi's glib comment about us "all being capitalists" pretty much points to a continuing hardening of points of view and class warfare. Democrats voted for Bernie Sanders because the alternative would have been "more of the same". It is still the issue of what do we want to be as a nation? It is not the rejection of capitalism, per se but our inability so far to finding a third way to move forward.

Posted by Reginald Bronner on 2017-05-30 09:36:02

I find this whole thread to be enervating and lacking relevance. We need both and inside and outside strategy. We need to engage in electoral politics in a way that raises our issues, contends for real power and that does not leave a vacuum for the center or right to fill because of our absence. We need to do organizing, coalition work, intellectual work and issue specific work because real things are at stake both for people and the planet. There is plenty of work to do. Let's hue to our moral compass. Let's work hard to have just and right relationships. Let's struggle as if our lives depend on it -- they do. We do not always understand the value of our choice to engage. but if done with integrity, grace and smarts, I am sure that it has and always will make a difference. With love to all my brothers and sisters on the democratic left.... Si Se Puede...Yes We Can....

Posted by Paul Schwartz on 2017-04-23 16:40:54

I can only speak from the perspective of a Native American whos ancestors were "Socialists" and on a comparative scale much more successful than any "Oligarchy". Indeed the USA HATED the example of the "Tribes" whos homelands they invaded, and illegally occupy today as a result of abrogating their own treaties in violation of their own Constitution's Art. 6 Unfortunately the ignorance with which you express yourself reveals your limited ability to understand the 'concept of socialism'. Just one excellent example is your comment ending with 'from socialism to sharia law', and it echoes the paranoid propaganda that the "Oligarchy" of the USA teaches their 'mindless followers; (like yourself) who participate and by doing so, enables the Oligarchy. That the USA has been an "Oligarchy" from 1776 to present is undeniable. Those founders who wrote those often quoted lines that begin with "we hold these truths; and include the words; all men are created equal". They were not referring to the Native Americans who they were practicing open war upon; including even germ warfare.They were not referring to their slaves who they made vast fortunes from not only the labor but the human trafficking of the slaves as well. They were not referring to the children they produced with those slaves, who they most often sold as slaves themselves. They were not referring to their "indentured servants" who even though they may have been "white" were subject to being "enslaved" for several reasons and yes there were thousands of 'white slaves'......they were talking about themselves being equal to the royalty of Europe at the time; and they have only changed the faces of the "Oligarchy" from then to this very day. In short; you would not know a Democracy from a "dead skunk"............because you CHOOSE to be INGNORANT-------AND YOU ARE ASSURING YOUR OWN FAILURE. Native American history, from South America all the way to the Arctic Circle, also had "Oligarchies" in their past but the archeological evidence reveals that all of them collapsed. Socialistic forms of self governance were the systems that helped those who lived through the "collapse"-----survive, thrive, and live on. The USA, on a daily basis is revealing ALL of the classic traits/symptoms of 'collapse'. It will be those of us who are informed of the value of socialism that will survive by using the system that has proved all through human history to be successful FOR ALL OF THOSE WHO ARE PRACTICING IT. This is the exact opposite of the Oligarchy which is dedicated to "the few" at the expense of "the many". You should be so lucky to know someone who can help you survive the collapse that so many of you are bringing into reality by your arrogant ignorance.Good luck, you will be needing it,

Posted by Jahar Saddles on 2017-04-23 15:18:52

Paul Shaddox, You make excellent points. Thank you!

Posted by Thomas Wells on 2017-04-22 20:15:48

Thomas Wells, lilbear68 ( I wonder why he/she lacks the courage to post comments under his/her actual name) thinks that people on the political right are entitled to define the terms of debate and assign arguments to their opponents. I would refer you to Matthew 7:6. It is a waste of time trying to educate his kind.

Posted by Paul Shaddox on 2017-04-22 18:44:26

"End stage" is a meaningless term. Elements of socialism (local controlled public education, public banks and coop businesses, Medicare-Medicaid, public libraries, public parks, universal healthcare etc., etc.) all meaningfully demonstrate ways in which socialism can and does work here, and throughout the world. Now, as long you want to indulge in a horserace between economies, name one advanced capitalist country without massive poverty, hunger, unemployment. worker exploitation and sexual exploitation.

Posted by Thomas Wells on 2017-04-22 17:24:56

Strange that the attitude of Debs himself is not cited, and as you say, the DSA would be disavowed by Debs because for hiim the most important thing is to expose the capitalist parties and build a socialist party

Posted by alan johnstone on 2017-04-22 17:08:11

I would argue that the question has it backwards. The Democrats should be Democratic Socialists. Otherwise, there is little to distinguish them from old fashioned Eisenhower Republicans.

Posted by Paul Shaddox on 2017-04-22 15:30:27

another delusional loon but to keep this brief please give a current and ongoing success story of socialism in its end stage that is observable here on planet earth and spare me the Scandinavians as they are no where near the goal of socialismadd that with the history of failures there is little to fear lol

Posted by lilbear68 on 2017-04-22 13:37:12

Apparently there are divisions within Democratic Socialism as per the article. Bernie Sanders style is preferable because he's more aligned with the New Deal as Noam Chomky has stated. The Democratic party has unbelievably turned its back on FDR and the New Deal to its great detriment. It would be wise for the party to turn to the New Deal for guidance.

Posted by anyone2 on 2017-04-22 11:32:23

As a life long democratic socialist, I personally want to thank you for your remarks! The highest form of flattery for any growing and expanding grassroots movement is to have enemies who fear it so much, they feel compelled to spend their time trolling websites with their ignorant diatribes and rants. I really want to encourage you to keep it up. I look forward to hearing back from you. But I hope I can offer a suggestion. If you want really do a good job of linking democratic socialism to the great red menace, you need to do more name-calling. Why don't you just come out and say we're all a bunch of commie pinkos? You're desire to want to invoke the Joseph McCarthy era hysteria of the 1950s would be far more successful. I know everyone who lived through that period has such a nostalgia for it, and you are a great credit to his tradition!

Posted by Thomas Wells on 2017-04-22 11:24:26

how quant indeed the delusional libtard and some time spelling/grammar Nazi dodges the challenge

Posted by lilbear68 on 2017-04-21 16:10:43

How quaint, the bloviator responds with vacuous ranting and bad English.

Posted by John Armstrong on 2017-04-21 13:54:15

Ah, yes. Another piece of evidence that the "In These Times" left c. 2017, having helped put Trump in the White House is doubling down on the nonsense that did it.

The real left is the left that can get elected and change laws and policies for the better. The left that has been peddling pie-in-the-sky, the ever deferred revolution since the middle of the 19th century is the play left, the pretend left, the phony left that has done little but aid the worst of Republican-style fascism.

Anyone who is stlll holding out for Marxism as we see that it doesn't lead to equality and freedom but, predictably, to post-Soviet style mafia white supremacy and neo-Nazism, is hopeless and should be dumped.

Posted by Anthony McCarthy on 2017-04-21 10:10:10

Like it or not, the fight for socialism will proceed THROUGH the Democrats, and elections generally, at least unit the first transforms of goes the way of the Whigs and the latter are exhausted and discarded at the initiative of the right-- not in the eyes of you and me, but in the experience of many millions. If you want to work outside of this, fine. There is much to do on many fronts, both major and minor. But as someone who has taken part in nearly every third party effort in the past 50 years, to little avail, we finally have some traction. This is were major class battles are being fought today, and having won more than 45% of the delegates in the last convention matters. I have no illusions about the Dems as a party. They will change or die. I don't plan on being a passive observer in the process, I want our version of the 'Modern Prince' to come out of it. Otherwise, the is no socialism, democratic or otherwise. Only barbarism. Lend a hand or do your thing of to the side. We are going to push ahead on to front as far as we can go, and see what happens.

Posted by Carl Davidson on 2017-04-21 10:06:30

Nancy is candid and Bernie confused. Both support capitalism. 'The Republican and Democratic parties … are the political wings of the capitalist system and such differences as arise between them relate to spoils and not to principle. With either of these parties in power one thing is always certain and that is that the capitalist class is in the saddle and the working class under the saddle … The ignorant workingman who supports either of these parties forges his own fetters and is the unconscious author of his own misery’ (Eugene Debs).

Posted by Red Robbo on 2017-04-21 04:27:33

It's called full press court, a gaming strategy. Right now every possible should pile onto the Democrats, the socialists, the communists, the unions, the greens, the lazy that have not bothered to do anything for decades. A mass pile on, not to ask for hope and change, not to beg for hope and change but to force hope and change.

Posted by rtb61 on 2017-04-20 19:05:28

Bernie was progressive domestically, but his foreign policy seems much like that of Bush, Obama, Hillary or Trump.

typical libtard crap it doesn't fit what you want it to be you will create a reality in yoru own delusional world. but if you would please cite some current and ongoing successes of socialism here on planet earth and in this dimension that the average person can actually see and interact with. add that if this Shangri-La od socialism is real then why then are you not there? or are you sticking around to help point the way to the unbelievers

Posted by lilbear68 on 2017-04-20 17:59:20

What absolute nonsensical crap. Where do you get this garbage. You obviously know nothing of socialism or history. Your one dimensional view of history is sad. Assuming you live in the United States, many of the benefits you have as a citizen are socialistic. But of course you may not have the intelligence to recognize or understand that.

Posted by John Armstrong on 2017-04-20 15:08:53

Most former stalinists and social democrats are Democrats and have excluded themselves from the left. They are right centrists, like BS.

The left is now composed of revolutionary socialists, parts of the Labor Left that are in movement towards the left, a growing segment of the environmentalist movement and some nationalist groups representing people of color.

Posted by Bill_Perdue on 2017-04-20 13:57:48

The caption to the photo of Bernie Sanders says that he was "inspired by Debs but ran as a Democrat" is rather amusing. Debs would be rolling over in his grave at the thought that anyone inspired by him would run as a Democrat. He spent most of his career savagely attacking the Democratic Party. He understood that the two major parties were both the enemies of socialism. To be "inspired by Debs but run as a Democrat" is a contradiction in terms.

And, unfortunately, the DSA has been shilling for Democrats for years. It has always been a self-defeating strategy and it is one of the reasons I have little use for the DSA. I am glad to hear what Chris Maisano has to say and I am happy to hear that there is a Left Caucus in the DSA that seems to be trying to move the DSA in the correct direction. But whether they will have any success is another question altogether. Sadly, Jessie Mannisto's views probably reflect what the majority of the DSA thinks. I think Chris Maisano is beating his head against the wall in trying to push the DSA into breaking with the Democrats, but I wish him luck. If he succeeds, maybe there will be hope after all.

Posted by mikesoul on 2017-04-20 10:39:07

democratic socialist lol that's funny. it funny because in reality is doesn't exist. 'democratic' was added to make the term more palatable to many of the fence sitters and ppl that were/are unaware of socialism what it really is, what its goals are, what its endpoint is and its miserable history of failure. they love to throw up the Scandinavian countries as examples but the reality is that they are an unfinished version of socialism and their reality now indicates that if they don't change from the direction they are headed they will be moving from socialism to sharia law. for socialism at its end point look no further than N Korea, Cuba, the failed history of Maos china and Pol Pots Cambodia to see full on socialism.